| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 01/30/2010 4:51:35 PM PST by Admin Moderator, reason:
Get over your obsession already. |
Posted on 01/28/2010 10:41:12 AM PST by GonzoII
I’ve used that analogy before when I used to do a lot of pinging.
It makes perfect sense, no matter how many times it’s said!
It’s like befouling an aquifer.
Lurker has not responded to my comments which I posted again for his benefit.
You are correct, sir. The problem with Libertarians is that they believe good fruit will grow without roots. Real freedom is born of virtue. Libertarians are what make big, invasive Government eventually necessary. And so consulting adults easily divorce and leave motherless children (check THEIR statistics) and porn gazers feed an industry that brings death and ruin and a culture that spreads disease.
The problem is that no one can legally enforce virtue, yet virtues are necessary for a country to even have a legal system. Any “system” that disregards morality is doomed.
Entire countries are disappearing or allowing themselves to be invaded by foreigners because of the choices of consulting adults. There comes a point when freedom is also nothing left to lose. In truth freedom is a blank page and worshipping it devoid of content is like believing that blank pages are what create masterpieces of literature.
We live in a society of rights instead of virtues. But the two are inseparable. Decadence is a real danger. If there was a country noted for its sexual freedom, it was Holland. Today a patriot for freedom of speech is on trial there. Libertarianism turns multiculturalist and multiculturalism turns anti-libertarian.
It is insane to live in a world in which everything is all about consenting adults. It’s the quick and dirty, unthinking answer. Without the virtues which Libertarians now blithely choose to ignore, there would not be civilization.
And the irony, the paradox is that they will end up getting a helluva lot more religion (in the negative sense of the term) by not defending the simple precepts. Freedom isn’t free.
“A King or leader never paraded his mistress around?”
Parading a mistress about, fully clothed, is a different thing from public and too-specific discussions of exactly what’s going on when the naughty bits come out.
“After the King’s death the prelate of the Church had her dug up and reburied outside the Church, because she was an infamous adulteress.”
Church of England, I might add, and if it was their rule that people could not be buried in consecrated ground under some circumstances, well, that’s the way it was.
“Now if everyone in the kingdom, even a dozen years after the King’s death, knew that Rosamund was his mistress; that was hardly being kept “behind closed doors”.”
Oh, really? Do you suppose that everyone in the kingdom knew exactly when and where she took his penis in her mouth, and who he was talking to at the time, and where he washed himself, and upon what garments she drooled semen? All those things are true of Slick Willie.
If all people know is that two people are accomplices in adultry, I’d say that was keeping quite a lot behind closed doors—compared to Clintoon, anyway.
“The criminal collusion of Ken Starr? Stock up on tinfoil much?”
Wear 360-degree blinders much?
“Maybe? Do you see a “compelling government interest” in regulating such behavior?”
I’m not sure today. Tomorrow I might have a better understanding. I will say that if kids know that mom and pop do it—or that the president does it—they will be more likely to do it themselves, when it could result in real harm.
“Do you see it as authorized under an expansive reading of the “interstate commerce” clause?”
Who mentioned a federal law?
“Do you feel that this position is compatible with the notion of limited government?”
Thomas Jefferson did.
And can you imagine what would have ensued if someone had walked into Independence Hall, when all the boys were there for another day of creating the most noble document ever penned by man, and some idiot had walked in and started telling John Dickinson, Gouverneur Morris, Edmund Randolph, Roger Sherman, James Wilson, George Wythe, James Madison, and George Washington about the barmaid who fellated him the night before, and how it felt, and how she drooled ejaculate on her dress?
It’s really pretty simple, unless you’re under the sway of the glamor of Evil. A properly formed conscience will tell a man what things are sufficiently harmful to justify criminalization.
“Henry II of England was long before Henry VIII; a cursory knowledge of history and a basic understanding of numbers should have informed you of that salient fact”
I know that quite well. I made a mistake in reading because (a) I was in a hurry to meet a deadline, and (b) I can’t afford new glasses.
“Please provide a source for your contention that Thomas Jefferson thought that a husband and wife pleasuring each other with their mouths should be outlawed.”
Oh, I’m sorry. I thought we were arguing in good faith.
Surely such a knowledgeable chap as yourself must know all about the code of laws Jefferson penned.
“By citing Jefferson one must assume that you DO think that such a law is compatible with limited government.”
Of course it is. I said earlier that I wasn’t sure we wanted to do that, not that we couldn’t.
“Worshiping Satan is sufficiently harmful. Do you propose that it should be outlawed.”
Absolutely.
“Do you think doing so is compatible with a nation of religious freedom?”
Religious freedom applies to those who worship God, not to every whacko cult that comes down the pike. A nutball hodgepodge doesn’t become a legitimate religion just because some barking moonbat calls it one.
So C.S. Lewis would be a fan of porn?
I honestly don’t mean any ill will towards you, but to call me a tyrant is a bit much.
C.S. Lewis was an orthodox Episcopalian. He was a devout follower of Christ. Are you trying to tell me that he would defend something like porn?
I don’t understand why you had to approach this discussion in such a nasty way? I mean no harm. If anything I care deeply for people and am not looking out to control anybody.
I am not a leader, nor am I a law maker, so I will not be getting in the way of you and your precious porn.
I guess we live in a tyrannical society than, because we have many laws that govern over amoral sexual behavior among other things.
Have a nice day.
Sorry, you are wrong. Adults engaging in porn hurts no innocent participants(unless they are kidnapped and forced to participate), children, OTH, are hurt when used in Child porn, both mentally and physically. Porn between adults is nothing more than sex. Filming people having sex.
While I don't watch porn(did in my youth till I figured out the real thing is much, much better)I would not support any law against Adult porn. The people who engage in it do so willingly and there are already laws against kidnapping and forcing people against their will.
People who rail against porn are moralistic and want everyone to follow their idea of what is right and correct, much in the manner of liberals and progressives.
Here are some quotes from C.S. Lewis that might also interest you.
No man knows how bad he is till he has tried very hard to be good. A silly idea is current that good people do not know what temptation means. This is an obvious lie. Only those who try to resist temptation know how strong it is. After all, you find out the strength of the German Army by fighting it, not by giving in. You find out the strength of the wind by trying to walk against it, not by lying down. A man who gives in to temptation after five minutes simply does not know what it would have been like an hour later. That is why bad people, in one sense, know very little about badness. They have lived a sheltered life by always giving in. We never find out the strength of the evil impulse inside us until we try to fight it: and Christ, because He was the only man who never yield to temptation, is the only man who knows to the full what temptation means-the only complete realist (C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity).
C.S. Lewis, “Pornography users aren't to be rebuked for desiring too much but for desiring too little”.
C.S. Lewis once said that the agenda of the Left is to make pornography
public and religion private.
“There are people who want to keep our sex instinct inflamed in order to make money out of us,” wrote C. S. Lewis. “Because, of course, a man with an obsession is a man who has very little sales-resistance.”[6]
6 C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (London: Collins, 1961), p. 88
You can get a large audience together for a strip-tease act—that is, to watch a girl undress on the stage. Now suppose you came to a country where you could fill a theatre by simply bringing a covered plate on to the stage and then slowly lifting the cover so as to let every one see, just before the lights went out, that it contained a mutton chop or a bit of bacon, would you not think that in that country something had gone wrong with the appetite for food? And would not anyone who had grown up in a different world think there was something equally queer about the state of the sex instinct among us? Mere Christianity 1952
But, of course, when people say, “Sex is nothing to be ashamed of,” they may mean “the state into which the sexual instinct has now got is nothing to be ashamed of.”
If they mean that, I think they are wrong. I think it is everything to be ashamed of. There is nothing to be ashamed of in enjoying your food: there would be everything to be ashamed of if half the world made food the main interest of their lives and spent their time looking at pictures of food and dribbling and smacking their lips. I do not say you and I are individually responsible for the present situation. Our ancestors have handed over to us organisms which are warped in this respect: and we grow up surrounded by propaganda in favour of unchastity. There are people who want to keep our sex instinct inflamed in order to make money out of us. Because, of course, a man with an obsession a man who has very little sales-resistance. God knows our situation; He will not judge us as if we had no difficulties to overcome. What matters is the sincerity and perseverance of our will to overcome them. Mere Christianity 1952
He did not say in any of his quotes that you should outlaw porn. But you don't have to think to hard to figure out where he stood on it.
The people involved in making the porn are being victimized. I don't care how much they say they love doing it, and blah blah blah, they have a deep dislike for themselves and that is what drives them. If this were not the case, drug use would not be so prevalent in that industry. I would not pay any money to anybody so that these people can continue to be victimized and degraded.
Will there ever be laws against it again? Probably not. Is it tyrannical to not want somebody hurt in a sexual way? I didn't think so.
Just be careful. Don’t let the porn take over your life. It can if you let it.
I wish you and your wife the best.
“Entire countries are disappearing or allowing themselves to be invaded by foreigners because of the choices of consulting adults.”
Excellently written post in its entirety, thanks.
So no source. Thomas Jefferson wasn't exactly a puritan, and as something of a heretic in his religious beliefs I am not sure I am willing to accept him as some sort of absolute moral authority in any case.
If you think such laws that determine what someone can and cannot worship and what practices are forbidden between a husband and wife in the bedroom are consistent with the notion of a government of limited authority and the absolute freedom of conscience of the people; I simply do not know what to tell you other than that your ideas are anathema to what Thomas Jefferson proposed.
“People are FREE to worship whatever damn fool idea comes into their head, and they are free to talk about that idea and try to convince people of it.”
A proposition with which the Founding Fathers would not agree, which means that this interpretation of the Constitution is faulty.
“America’s founders were wise enough to understand that religious freedom could not be limitless. They also understood that this precious liberty should not be restricted unless the state could provide good reasons why these restrictions are justified. This is why the wording of free exercise provisions in state constitutions at the time of the founding of America typically allowed for the limitation of religious liberty if the prohibited actions would interfere with some aspect of the community’s good. New York State’s Constitution (1777) is typical in this regard: “The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever hereafter be allowed, within this State, to all mankind: Provided, That the liberty of conscience, hereby granted, shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness, or justify practices inconsistent with the peace or safety of this State.”
http://homepage.mac.com/francis.beckwith/Free.htm
“Thomas Jefferson wasn’t exactly a puritan, and as something of a heretic in his religious beliefs”
What, are you on sabbatical from DU or something? You don’t get much applause for trashing the heroes of the revolution on this site.
“I am not sure I am willing to accept him as some sort of absolute moral authority in any case.”
False dichotomy. The choices are not between accepting him as an abolute moral authority or completely dismissing his thoughts. He is one of the sources to which we can look to determine how the Founding Fathers actually understood the Constitution.
“I simply do not know what to tell you other than that your ideas are anathema to what Thomas Jefferson proposed.”
Try again. It is your ideas for which Jefferson would have cheerfully flogged, or even executed, your philosophical ancestors.
Here are a couple of sources that mention Jefferson’s proposal of castration for the crime of sodomy. Odd that you never heard of it, being such an expert on the topic and all.
“Under the Capital Laws of New-England that went into effect between 1636-1647 the death penalty was meted out for pre-meditated murder, sodomy, witchcraft, adultery, idolatry, blasphemy, assault in anger, rape, statutory rape, manstealing, perjury in a capital trial, rebellion, manslaughter, poisoning and bestiality. Early laws were accompanied by a scripture from the Old Testament.”
Jefferson himself wrote, “The first reforms of the death penalty occurred between 1776-1800. Thomas Jefferson and four others, authorized to undertake a complete revision of Virginia’s laws, proposed a law that recommended the death penalty for only treason and murder. After a stormy debate the legislature defeated the bill by one vote.
“The fantastical idea of virtue and the public good being a sufficient security to the state against the commission of crimes,... was never mine. It is only the sanguinary hue of our penal laws which I meant to object to.
Punishments I know are necessary, and I would provide them strict and inflexible, but proportioned to the crime. Death might be inflicted for murder and perhaps for treason, [but I] would take out of the description of treason all crimes which are not such in their nature. Rape, buggery, etc., punish by castration.”
http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/431452
“In 1777, Thomas Jefferson and others worked on a proposed new criminal code for Virginia in anticipation of the success of the American Revolution. The proposed new sodomy law would have eliminated the death penalty and replaced it with castration for males and the boring of a hole through the nose of a woman. The proposal did not become law, but clearly showed that women were subject to prosecution under current legal thinking.
“In 1792, when Virginia enacted its first sodomy law, it still was not ready for the removal of the death penalty. The law did, however, make certain that women were liable to prosecution. The new law read:
“That if any do commit the detestable and abominable vice of Buggery, with man or beast, he or she so offending, shall be adjudged a felon, and shall suffer death, in the case of felony, without the benefit of Clergy.
(The article goes on to say, “This law makes it clear that a woman could not be a victim of sodomy, but could be a perpetrator,” but that does not appear to be the case.)
“In 1800, the Virginia legislature showed its willingness to reduce the penalty for sodomy, but only for some people. A new statute30 set a penalty of 1-10 years for free persons committing sodomy either as principal or as accessory, but did not reduce the death penalty for slaves.
“In 1916, Virginia amended its sodomy law to expand its scope to cover oral sex. However, the legislature made a unique contribution to law for more than a half century when it worded the provision to read, ‘If any person...[shall] have carnal copulation in any manner with another person of the same sex...’ Fellatio and cunnilingus could be enjoyed by heterosexuals, but not homosexual men or lesbians.
“The Virginia Supreme Court followed the dictates of this statute in the case of Wise v. Commonwealth, decided in 1923, when it unanimously overturned the conviction of a heterosexual man for cunnilingus. The Court stated that it could not understand why the legislature put the same-sex restriction into the law, ‘unless because the legislators did not even imagine that such an offense would ever be committed between a man and a woman.’
However, the Court was confident that the legislature “will cure the oversight when called to its attention[.]”50 In concluding, the Court said that it “can hardly be necessary for us to say that the subject of this opinion has been distasteful.”51 They had endeavored to reach the conclusion ‘without unnecessary indelicacy of expression, but also without prudery or idle denunciation of the act charged. This character of evil conduct is the vice of low and depraved natures, and instances of it appear to have been notably rare in this jurisdiction.’
The legislature did exactly as the Court suggested. In 1924, the law was reworded to read, “If any person shall carnally know in any manner any brute animal, or carnally know any male of female person by the anus or by or with the mouth, or voluntarily submit to such carnal knowledge, he or she shall be guilty of a felony and shall be confined in the penitentiary not less than one nor more than three years.
“During World War I, Virginia followed the lead of other states and amended its law to permit prosecution for oral sex, except that this provision was limited to acts between those of the same sex. There is no historical indication as to why this discrimination was enacted and, when a heterosexual oral sex case appeared before it, the Virginia Supreme Court reluctantly reversed on that ground. The legislature speedily revised the law to include heterosexual acts.”
http://www.glapn.org/sodomylaws/sensibilities/virginia.htm
“Under the Capital Laws of New-England that went into effect between 1636-1647 the death penalty was meted out for pre-meditated murder, sodomy, witchcraft, adultery, idolatry, blasphemy, assault in anger, rape, statutory rape, manstealing, perjury in a capital trial, rebellion, manslaughter, poisoning and bestiality. Early laws were accompanied by a scripture from the Old Testament.”
Jefferson himself wrote, “The first reforms of the death penalty occurred between 1776-1800. Thomas Jefferson and four others, authorized to undertake a complete revision of Virginia’s laws, proposed a law that recommended the death penalty for only treason and murder. After a stormy debate the legislature defeated the bill by one vote.
“The fantastical idea of virtue and the public good being a sufficient security to the state against the commission of crimes...was never mine. It is only the sanguinary hue of our penal laws which I meant to object to.
Punishments I know are necessary, and I would provide them strict and inflexible, but proportioned to the crime. Death might be inflicted for murder and perhaps for treason, [but I] would take out of the description of treason all crimes which are not such in their nature. Rape, buggery, etc., punish by castration.”
http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/431452
“In 1777, Thomas Jefferson and others worked on a proposed new criminal code for Virginia in anticipation of the success of the American Revolution. The proposed new sodomy law would have eliminated the death penalty and replaced it with castration for males and the boring of a hole through the nose of a woman. The proposal did not become law, but clearly showed that women were subject to prosecution under current legal thinking.
“In 1792, when Virginia enacted its first sodomy law, it still was not ready for the removal of the death penalty. The law did, however, make certain that women were liable to prosecution. The new law read
“That if any do commit the detestable and abominable vice of Buggery, with man or beast, he or she so offending, shall be adjudged a felon, and shall suffer death, in the case of felony, without the benefit of Clergy.
(The article goes on to say, “This law makes it clear that a woman could not be a victim of sodomy, but could be a perpetrator,” but that does not appear to be the case.)
“In 1800, the Virginia legislature showed its willingness to reduce the penalty for sodomy, but only for some people. A new statute30 set a penalty of 1-10 years for free persons committing sodomy either as principal or as accessory, but did not reduce the death penalty for slaves.
“In 1916, Virginia amended its sodomy law to expand its scope to cover oral sex. However, the legislature made a unique contribution to law for more than a half century when it worded the provision to read, ‘If any person...[shall] have carnal copulation in any manner with another person of the same sex...’ Fellatio and cunnilingus could be enjoyed by heterosexuals, but not homosexual men or lesbians.
“The Virginia Supreme Court followed the dictates of this statute in the case of Wise v. Commonwealth, decided in 1923, when it unanimously overturned the conviction of a heterosexual man for cunnilingus. The Court stated that it could not understand why the legislature put the same-sex restriction into the law, ‘unless because the legislators did not even imagine that such an offense would ever be committed between a man and a woman.’
“However, the Court was confident that the legislature ‘will cure the oversight when called to its attention.’ In concluding, the Court said that it ‘can hardly be necessary for us to say that the subject of this opinion has been distasteful.’ They had endeavored to reach the conclusion ‘without unnecessary indelicacy of expression, but also without prudery or idle denunciation of the act charged. This character of evil conduct is the vice of low and depraved natures, and instances of it appear to have been notably rare in this jurisdiction.’
“The legislature did exactly as the Court suggested. In 1924, the law was reworded to read, ‘If any person shall carnally know in any manner any brute animal, or carnally know any male of female person by the anus or by or with the mouth, or voluntarily submit to such carnal knowledge, he or she shall be guilty of a felony and shall be confined in the penitentiary not less than one nor more than three years.’
“During World War I, Virginia followed the lead of other states and amended its law to permit prosecution for oral sex, except that this provision was limited to acts between those of the same sex. There is no historical indication as to why this discrimination was enacted and, when a heterosexual oral sex case appeared before it, the Virginia Supreme Court reluctantly reversed on that ground. The legislature speedily revised the law to include heterosexual acts.”
http://www.glapn.org/sodomylaws/sensibilities/virginia.htm
Hilarious.
If you don't consider Thomas Jefferson's religious views heretical, what do you consider them, in line with your own?
He denied the divinity of Jesus the Christ and wrote the miracles out of the New Testament.
Excellent references. I will copy and save in my files.
How I wish you and others who believe as you do would also respect our wish not to have larger-than-life advertisements for lurid products on very public billboards, retail signboards, newspapers and television airwaves. Do what you want in your home. But stop beleaguering the decency of other people and invading the innocence of their children.
Great post. God bless you. I, too, was thinking of highways in New Jersey when I earlier posted about nasty public billboards.
I agree with you. But since the 60s, our Supreme Court has routinely overturned community standards in its zeal to legislate amorality from the bench.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.